Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Messenger Flies by Mercury

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on from the fun-in-the-sun dept.

Riding with Robots writes "Today, more than three decades after the last spacecraft visited Mercury, Messenger buzzed just 200 kilometers above the planet's surface. During the encounter, the robotic spacecraft conducted a range of scientific observations, including imaging swaths of Mercury's surface that have never been seen up close before. A few of the first pictures are now available, with many more to come in the next few days."

170 comments

  1. Again? by SpaceLifeForm · · Score: 1

    When will this ever end? :-)

    --
    You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
    1. Re:Again? by Amorymeltzer · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Just as in Biology, a lot of what is observed in Astronomy is what's big, pretty, and easy. Venus and Mercury are two planets that are largely unappealing by normal standards - way too hot, completely dead and barren. It's always good to see good science being done for the sake of science, not public opinion. Cassini and the rovers were fantastic, but the less glamorous missions are just as important to our understanding.

      --
      I live in constant fear of the Coming of the Red Spiders.
    2. Re:Again? by rk · · Score: 5, Informative

      Part of the problem, too, is that it's really tricky to get to Mercury due to the amount of delta-v you need to shed Earth orbit, plus unlike Mars, Mercury has a negligible atmosphere which makes aerobraking useless. That's why they did three slingshot maneuvers to get there. The navigation team at JPL has really outdone themselves with this flight, and are to be commended.

      It actually takes more delta-v to get to the sun than it takes to leave the solar system from here. This is why that whole "send dangerous waste to the sun" is a really bad idea. It takes a huge amount of fuel and if you miss, you've got a dangerous payload in a highly eccentric orbit that almost certainly crosses the Earth's. What could possibly go wrong? :-)

      And maybe it's because I'm a space nerd, but I think MESSENGER is glamorous as hell.

    3. Re:Again? by MorpheousMarty · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Perhaps you could clarify something for me. After you break earth's orbit, why would it take any extra energy to get to the sun? (This is assuming of course that the garbage is pointed at the sun and timed so it wouldn't get close enough to Venus and Mercury to divert it's course. Why would getting away from the sun be easier than going towards it?

      And a solution to send garbage safely would be to aim it a bit high or low (perpendicular to orbit of Earth). The slingshot would almost never send it back towards the orbit. As a space geek I'm just curious.

    4. Re:Again? by Tom+Rothamel · · Score: 3, Interesting

      That's why they did three slingshot maneuvers to get there. The navigation team at JPL has really outdone themselves with this flight, and are to be commended.


      Interestingly enough, the navigation of this flight was outsourced to Kintex. The mission itself is managed by APL... AFAIK, JPL wasn't particularly involved.
    5. Re:Again? by Tablizer · · Score: 3, Informative

      This is assuming of course that the garbage is pointed at the sun and timed so it wouldn't get close enough to Venus and Mercury to divert it's course. Why would getting away from the sun be easier than going towards it?

      If you point it right at the Sun from ground perspective, it will just come back to circle the Earth unless propelled really hard. One needs to find a way to bleed sun-orbiting speed off of it. There's no free lunch.

      --
      Table-ized A.I.
    6. Re:Again? by rpj1288 · · Score: 5, Informative
      Actually, pointing something towards the sun wouldn't really send your payload into the sun unless you pushed really, really, really hard. To get something to approach the sun using chemical rockets, one must think about the concept of an orbit. An orbit is defined by the object's speed around its central body. Thus, in order to get closer to the sun, your payload would have to drop its orbital velocity to near enough to zero, if you want a fast collision. You would need to use energy to get to the limit of earth's gravitational influence, about 1,000,000km out. At this point, you would essentially moving with the same orbital velocity as the earth with respect to the sun. Escape velocity for Earth is about 11km/s. With respect to the Sun, the Earth has an orbital velocity of about 48km/s. This means that to get you probe to go on a straight line to the sun, you would need 59km/s of delta v, which is a hell of a lot, and delta v is (essentially) directly proportional to amount of fuel you must carry. Now, granted, you could take a more circuitous route to arrive at the sun, and use less delta v, but it would still be a significant fraction of the 59km/s.

      With regards to you second question, unless the highly inclined orbit was altered again at perigee and apogee with respect to the sun, your payload would return to the Earth's orbit.

      Note: I am not a rocket scientist, at least not for a while, but I have done a bit of interplanetary stuff like this. All the numbers come from google. And it is entirely possible I'm quite mistaken, but I hope this was a bit helpful.

      --
      Marvin knew: "Think of a number, any number..."
    7. Re:Again? by SharpFang · · Score: 1

      You -could- bleed the speed, by say a solar wind sail paralell to the solar wind movement (this way the sail could be reusable, just reorient it to perpendicular and fly it back home on solar wind) - it would take a long time but we're not in a hurry with these.

      --
      45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    8. Re:Again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Using a sail to tack like this works for oceangoing vessels because the hull is sitting in water, and counters the torque of the mast.

      In space, with no analogous mass to counter the torque, the force of the solar wind on the sail would reorient the craft until the plane of the sail is perpendicular to the wind.

    9. Re:Again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ahem . . . you mean APL, not JPL.

    10. Re:Again? by SharpFang · · Score: 1

      Very minor maneuvre engines would suffice to keep the orientation. This is a position of unstable ballance, but ballance - very weak active stabilizing suffices. We can't 'sail upwind' but we can introduce 'friction' against the solar wind in the movement on the orbit. Standard movement vector of solar wind (outward) is neglected (slides along the surface), and we're acting only in perpendicular direction, our orbital speed against "zero" component of the speed vector of the solar wind. As we lose angular speed, we 'fall' on the Sun, and even the drag outwards from solar wind isn't so harmful, because as you lose angular speed, influence of sun's gravity increases and will eventually counteract the drag of solar wind.

      --
      45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    11. Re:Again? by Ihlosi · · Score: 2, Informative
      Standard movement vector of solar wind (outward) is neglected (slides along the surface), and we're acting only in perpendicular direction, our orbital speed against "zero" component of the speed vector of the solar wind.



      Solar sails do not use the solar wind (i.e. charged particles) for propulsion, but the light pressure (photons). Also, you can actually control the direction of the thrust gained from from the solar sail by changing the direction in which the photons are reflected (at the expense of absolute thrust, since the effective area of the sail drops if it does not reflect the photons straight back at the sun).

    12. Re:Again? by CheshireCatCO · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The answer is easiest to see in terms of angular momentum. (Orbits are really all about angular momentum, more so than energy.) If you break free of Earth's immediate gravity, you're still in pretty much the same orbit as the Earth going around the Sun. You have to dump a lot of that angular momentum to reach Mercury or the Sun, and that takes quite a bit of work. Remember, escape speed from the Earth's surface is around 11 km/sec, but the Earth's orbital speed is around 30 km/sec. You have to dump about 7 km/sec to go into a sufficiently elliptical orbit to reach Mercury and then you need to dump another 20-something km/sec to circularize the orbit. You have to dump almost all your orbital velocity it to reach the Sun at all (even on an elliptical orbit that reaches the Earth, I figure you need to drop down to 3 km/sec at Earth's orbit to reach the surface of the Sun). On the other hand, escaping completely from a circular orbit requires less than 45% more speed, so escaping the solar system completely requires less delta-v than going to Mercury. (It takes about 15 km/sec to reach Pluto's orbit, making yours ultimately circular.)

    13. Re:Again? by SharpFang · · Score: 1

      Solar sails do not use the solar wind (i.e. charged particles) for propulsion, but the light pressure (photons).

      moot.

      Also, you can actually control the direction of the thrust gained from from the solar sail by changing the direction in which the photons are reflected (at the expense of absolute thrust, since the effective area of the sail drops if it does not reflect the photons straight back at the sun).

      Yes, but only within the "outward 180 degrees" range. You can't -propel- yourself towards the Sun using a solar sail. Still, the 180 degrees suffice, and in particulat the "very inefficient" areas near the edges of the interval, where most of the thrust is applied to the speed component paralell to the orbit, perpendicular to the solar wind. The outward component (paralell to the solar wind) should be soon ballanced by solar gravity as centrifugal force vanishes.

      --
      45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    14. Re:Again? by rk · · Score: 1

      Ah, quite right you are. Thanks for the correction. I've been out of the space game a couple years now, and remembering who's doing what (apart from the things I actually worked on... I was an MGS, Odyssey, & MER guy) isn't part of my daily routine anymore :-). So, yeah, the sentiment still stands, but for the KinetX and Johns Hopkins folks. That's some fancy flying!

    15. Re:Again? by Dieppe · · Score: 1

      Try this experiment. Go to a playground with a merry-go-round. You might have to go old school for that. Now stand on the edge and propel it, oh, clockwise. Get it going pretty fast. Now try to reach for the middle. Better yet, drop a coin like a probe from the planet earth. Where does it go? Toward the center?

    16. Re:Again? by MorpheousMarty · · Score: 1

      Thank you for your answer, unfortunately I still don't get why you couldn't pick an angle to escape the Earth that would get you to the Sun. I guess I just don't get orbits, but I will spend some time thinking about it. I don't see why you need to slow down to get close to the sun, I would want to hit it as fast as possible (I'm not a patient man). I do understand that if you leave the earth you're still moving like heck relative to the sun, I should probably meditate on that for a while. Thanks again.

    17. Re:Again? by CheshireCatCO · · Score: 1

      Think of it like this:

      Escape speed from Earth is 11 km/sec and you end up barely moving relative to the Earth once you're reasonably far away (say past the Moon). So you share the 30 km/sec orbital speed with the Earth. That means that you're moving *sideways* to the direction of the Sun at that gawdawful speed. If you try to move toward the Sun, you'll still slip to the side and miss it. You've got to kill your sideways orbital speed first, and then you (automatically) drop down closer to the Sun. (Irony of it is, you then speed back up. Common orbital mechanics quip is that you hit the brakes to speed up.) It's not issue of how fast you are going when you hit the Sun, it's a matter of not being able to hit the Sun at all from those initial conditions unless you kill that forward speed.

    18. Re:Again? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      "Why would getting away from the sun be easier than going towards it?"

      Quite easy. The Earth orbits the Sun with a certain velocity, approx. 30 km/s. Let's just call it v. If you want to get out of the Solar system, you need to accelerate to at least ~1.41v (a parabolic trajectory with speed = 0 in the infinity). So you need to have ~0.41v relative to Earth after leaving Earth's sphere of influence (this is a bit vague, let's just say that 10^7 km is quite enough :-)). To get to the Sun (or into the Sun), you need to cancel the orbital velocity of Earth, which is v, and that is much more than just 0.4v.

      According to Tsiolkovsky's equation, the fuel consumption for this just skyrockets (pun intended ;-)), at least with chemical fuel. rpj1288's response is very nice, but I must correct (or rather elaborate on) this part - to increase the terminal speed of a rocket by a constant addend, you must multiply the amount of fuel by a constant, i.e., the relationship is exponential. For a fuel with 4 km/s of exhaust speed, you need 2.718-times more fuel every time you need a 4 km/s increase of speed. 0.6v for v=30 km/s is almost 20 km/s, and that is a hell of a problem. The gravity field of Earth changes things a bit, but I think that compared to this extra energy, it's just a small detail.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    19. Re:Again? by jcr · · Score: 1

      "You can't -propel- yourself towards the Sun using a solar sail. "

      If you're starting from earth, you can in effect. You'd use the sail to reduce your orbital velocity, causing you to drop into a lower orbit around the sun. Slow down enough, and you'll fall all the way into the sun if you want.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    20. Re:Again? by SharpFang · · Score: 1

      That's what I meant from the beginning!

      (the sail does not propel you as such towards the Sun. Solar gravity does, and the sail only propels you against orbital speed, so you drop to a lower orbit in effect.)

      --
      45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    21. Re:Again? by B.D.Mills · · Score: 1

      The Earth is moving very quickly in its orbit.

      Imagine you are in an aircraft travelling over a target on the ground, and you have to drop some small projectile to hit that target just as you pass over it. If you just drop the projectile, the speed of the plane will cause the projectile to have a horizontal velocity equal to the speed of the aircraft, and you will miss your target by a wide margin. To make the projectile fall vertically, you have to throw it backwards from the aircraft with a backwards velocity equal to the forward velocity of the plane.

      Dropping something into the sun is roughly the same. The Earth is moving in its orbit at more than 107,000 kilometres per hour, or nearly 30 kilometres per second. To make something fall straight towards the sun it has to be hurled backwards at this speed. The escape speed of Earth is only 11 kilometres per second.

      --

      The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. - Edmund Burke
  2. Cant wait by hebertrich · · Score: 1

    Just cant wait to see the surface of Mercury ..
    Never know .. might be a nice Alien base on it's dark side :D

    1. Re:Cant wait by CheshireCatCO · · Score: 1

      Mercury has a dark side?

    2. Re:Cant wait by Mantaar · · Score: 5, Informative

      Mercury has a dark side? Sort of. It was thought to be tidally locked, until they found out it rotates approx. thrice for every two revolutions around the sun. Mercury has quite a complex orbit, with mercurial days varying between 176 and 58.7 earthen days, as you can read up in Wikipedia
      --
      I'm an infovore...
    3. Re:Cant wait by xouumalperxe · · Score: 4, Funny

      Never know .. might be a nice Alien base on it's dark side

      Or... a Predator! *ducks*

    4. Re:Cant wait by osu-neko · · Score: 1

      It's in the same solar system as us. Still only one sun in it, so yes, like all the planets, it has a lit side and an unlit side.

      --
      "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
    5. Re:Cant wait by kundziad · · Score: 1

      At a time, not constantly.

    6. Re:Cant wait by Cassius+Corodes · · Score: 4, Funny

      Perhaps you took the astrology course by mistake?

      --
      Control is an illusion, order our comforting lie. From chaos, through chaos, into chaos we fly
    7. Re:Cant wait by CheshireCatCO · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Yes, I know. The question was asked rhetorically.

    8. Re:Cant wait by CheshireCatCO · · Score: 2, Informative

      You can't exactly put a base on the "unlit side", though. All sides get sunlight at some point. It's like saying that the humans have built Washington DC on the night-side of Earth: possibly technically true when said, but not very descriptive since that changes.

    9. Re:Cant wait by fireman+sam · · Score: 4, Funny

      I for one welcome our Predator ducks overlords.

      Sorry.

      --
      it is only after a long journey that you know the strength of the horse.
    10. Re:Cant wait by Takichi · · Score: 4, Funny

      Nothing beats those astrology and cosmetology courses.

    11. Re:Cant wait by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Never know .. might be a nice Alien base on it's dark side Or... a Predator! *ducks* Or a Predator.... aghhhhaaaaaa........ *Alien bursts out of chest*
    12. Re:Cant wait by maglor_83 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Something like this? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Count_Duckula

    13. Re:Cant wait by nospam007 · · Score: 1, Funny

      Yes, I know. The question was asked rhetorically.

      You forgot to add:
      You can look up rhetorically in Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhetorically

    14. Re:Cant wait by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      You can look up rhetorically in Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhetorically I think you meant to link to "Rhetorical Question"
    15. Re:Cant wait by mcpkaaos · · Score: 0

      Does it matter?

      --
      It goes from God, to Jerry, to me.
    16. Re:Cant wait by dintech · · Score: 1

      I'm taking a distance learning course in sooth-saying and one-eyed squinting.

    17. Re:Cant wait by famebait · · Score: 1

      But what the hell are messenger flies anyway, and should we welcome them as overlords too? Being from Mercury and all...

      --
      sudo ergo sum
    18. Re:Cant wait by Xerxes314 · · Score: 1

      Nothing beats those astrology and cosmetology courses.

      What's the difference between a cosmologist and a cosmetologist?
      Cosmologists use Planck's constant as a foundation; cosmetologists use Max Factor.

      What's the difference between Max Factor and string cosmology?
      Max Factor has models that work.

    19. Re:Cant wait by RobertB-DC · · Score: 2, Funny

      ...quite a complex orbit, with mercurial days...

      Yeah, but the emo nights are the worst. Planets can be so bipolar!

      --
      Stressed? Me? Of course not. Stress is what a rubber band feels before it breaks, silly.
    20. Re:Cant wait by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mercury has a dark side?

      Not sure, but I bet you do, you sweet-talkin' /.er....

    21. Re:Cant wait by TravisW · · Score: 1

      It's not that a day (in any sense) varies between 58.7 and 176 (Earth days), it's that those numbers are measurements for different definitions of day. Mercury's sidereal day, the time it takes Mercury to make a complete rotation (with respect to the background stars), is 58.7 days. The length of Mars' solar day, the time it takes to for the sun to cross the same meridian on Mercury (or the time it takes to reach the same place in the sky from the perspective of someone standing at a fixed point on Mercury) is 176 days. This notion is a little strange when you first hear about it, because the distinction is much narrower here on Earth: Our solar day is (very close to) the usual 24 hours, but our sidereal day is about four minutes shorter. (The difference on Mercury is so much larger than it is here because Earth's orbital period -- how long it takes to complete one trip around the sun -- is more than two orders of magnitude larger than its sidereal day. By contrast, on Mercury those quantities are comparable.)

    22. Re:Cant wait by B.D.Mills · · Score: 1

      Mercury has a dark side?

      Yes, it does. All planets in the solar system have one. It's called "night".
      --

      The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. - Edmund Burke
  3. Zoom? by Midnight+Thunder · · Score: 1

    Just looked at the photos and was hoping for something of higher resolution or of higher details. Is Messenger going to get any closer to the planet?

    --
    Jumpstart the tartan drive.
    1. Re:Zoom? by sighted · · Score: 5, Informative

      Those are just the approach images, the shots taken up through yesterday that show what the probe saw as it was speeding toward the planet. The close-ups taken today will be downloaded and posted over the coming hours and days. http://messenger.jhuapl.edu/gallery/sciencePhotos/

      --
      Saddle up: Riding with Robots
    2. Re:Zoom? by CheshireCatCO · · Score: 4, Informative

      Well, it'll go into orbit eventually, so yes. Hopefully.

      And even without getting a lot closer, this is *huge*. Fully 55% of Mercury's surface has never been imaged by spacecraft (and cannot really be imaged well from the ground), so we don't have a very good idea what more than half the planet looks like. This flyby, I'm told, well see about half of the un-imaged area.

    3. Re:Zoom? by das_magpie · · Score: 2, Funny

      The Planet?

      They just took a few shots of the moon if you ask me.

    4. Re:Zoom? by HoosierPeschke · · Score: 4, Funny

      That's no moon...

      --
      Mr. Universe: "They can't stop the signal, Mal. They can never stop the signal."
    5. Re:Zoom? by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      124 miles away at thousands of miles an hour, it'll get damn close on this fly-by.

    6. Re:Zoom? by fonik · · Score: 4, Funny

      It's just taking them a bit longer than usual to 'shop out all the UFO's.

    7. Re:Zoom? by TropicalCoder · · Score: 1

      All the movies are QuickTime format, and I refuse to install that on my computer. Last time I checked, at least, you can't just install a plugin to play the .mov type - you and up with this huge download that installs iPod stuff that I don't want littering my computer. There was a time when my VLC played QuickTime movies, but I just tried it with one of these Mercury approach videos and VLC played nothing but black frames. Suggestions? I think NASA should use some format that is a little more universal. Like what? What is the most universal, cross-platform format, anyhow? Is it mp4?

    8. Re:Zoom? by mrL1nX · · Score: 1

      most universal, cross-platform format uh, that would be uncompressed avi? :)
    9. Re:Zoom? by dotancohen · · Score: 1

      It's just taking them a bit longer than usual to gimp out all the UFO's.

      -- there, fixed that for you.

      --
      It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
  4. Message reads.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's hot here. I quit.

  5. Three Cheers for NASA! by spaceyhackerlady · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Hats off to the folks who put this together. I was in high school the last time we saw any closeup pictures of Mercury. Every time we send probes to other panets we find out really cool stuff. Messenger should be no exception.

    If we can't go there ourselves, we can send robots. Robots are cool. :-)

    ...laura

    1. Re:Three Cheers for NASA! by SimonInOz · · Score: 4, Funny

      >> Every time we send probes to other planets we find out really cool stuff.

      cool stuff? Now come on, this is Mercury.

      --
      "Cats like plain crisps"
    2. Re:Three Cheers for NASA! by tarogue · · Score: 4, Funny

      Just make sure you word you request for the Selenium properly, or Speedy will end up going in circles and you could die.

      --
      Life sucks, but death doesn't put out at all. -- Thomas J. Kopp
    3. Re:Three Cheers for NASA! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      like a probe to uranus?

    4. Re:Three Cheers for NASA! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      neah, they renamed it to urectum.

    5. Re:Three Cheers for NASA! by antic · · Score: 1

      It's a big, pocked rock. Yet there's something about the moment and the plain old images so far that is just so amazingly beautiful.

      --
      'Thats they exact same thing a banana wrench monkey.'
    6. Re:Three Cheers for NASA! by ohmpossum · · Score: 1

      Paris on Mercury: "That's hot."

      --
      Just set me up a basic sig... 10 PRINT "Gordon Aplin" : GOTO 10
    7. Re:Three Cheers for NASA! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hey, I think I left my iPod on Mercury. Could someone ask NASA if they could pick it up for me?

    8. Re:Three Cheers for NASA! by spaceyhackerlady · · Score: 1

      Not only is it Insightful, it's also Underrated. :-)

      Do we need -1 Mods on Crack?

      :-)

      ...laura

  6. Correction by Kozar_The_Malignant · · Score: 2, Informative

    >A few of the first pictures are now available, with many more to come in the next few days.

    Actually, only a few approach images are available. The first images from the close approach will not be available until 01/05/08 when Messenger has finished data collection and points its antenna towards Earth and begins to transmit data. Can't wait for images of a very harsh environment.

    --
    Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
    1. Re:Correction by the_other_chewey · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The first images from the close approach will not be available until 01/05/08

      Could we please use unambiguous date formatting?
      Something like YYYY-MM-DD?
      I guess you actually meant 2008-01-15 with a typo.

    2. Re:Correction by ashitaka · · Score: 1

      will not be available until 01/05/08 Jan. 5th? May 1st?

      I know the following post was less vague as there aren't 15 months, but for clarity sake can we ask for ISO dates?

      2008-01-05: No mistakes.
      --
      If you don't want to repeat the past, stop living in it.
    3. Re:Correction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      course, all date formats using numerals are only unambiguous after the first 12 days of each month.

    4. Re:Correction by stefanlasiewski · · Score: 4, Funny

      *clearly* he meant 01/15/8000000000008 , which in in the Mecurian calendar means the first month, fifteenth day in the 8-Trillion-and-8th Mecurian solar rotation.

      Plus, the Mercury citizens have learned to simply abbreviate as '08' on their paper calendars-- if you write all the zeros, the paper calendars usually catch fire before you are done-- so it's important to write quickly!

      --
      "Can of worms? The can is open... the worms are everywhere."
    5. Re:Correction by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      How is 2008-01-05 unambiguous? Maybe something like 05-Jan-2008, where the month can't possibly be confused with day.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    6. Re:Correction by the_other_chewey · · Score: 5, Insightful

      How is 2008-01-05 unambiguous?

      ISO 8601.
      Additionally, I'm completely unaware of anyone or anyplace using
      YYYY-DD-MM as a date format, and my googleing seems to confirm that.

    7. Re:Correction by Profane+MuthaFucka · · Score: 1, Funny

      I'm going to use that format from now on, and I'm going to call it the Reverse Polish Stardate.

      --
      Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
    8. Re:Correction by Detritus · · Score: 2, Informative

      Month names are not portable, they need to be localized. We have an ISO standard (YYYY-MM-DD) for dates, let's use it.

      --
      Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
    9. Re:Correction by mattr · · Score: 1

      That's also the standard in Japan, but with periods: 2008.01.15
      which sanity is erased by common use of imperial reign (this is year Heisei 20).

      Matt

    10. Re:Correction by Ralph+Spoilsport · · Score: 1
      I prefer something like 14.JAN.08 myself...

      RS

      --
      Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
    11. Re:Correction by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 2, Insightful

      ISO 8601.

      Standardization and unambiguity are different beasts.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    12. Re:Correction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Canadian Armed Forces uses a one- or two-digit date, a three-letter month, and a two-digit year, always in that order, hence 14 Jan 08. I was born 11 Sep 87. My friend Andapanda was born 21 Apr 88 (or 87, don't remember).

      Geddit?

    13. Re:Correction by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      mod parent up. It thought it was funny, not "flamebait". Anyhow, how is the reader gonna know if anybody uses YYYY-DD-MM? It's not realistic to research every encounter.

      --
      Table-ized A.I.
    14. Re:Correction by Profane+MuthaFucka · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Oh it was flamebait you know. I used the word "stardate" which, as all geeks know, is the codeword that William Shatner used on the original Star Trek to get past the censors. If you look at the original script, instead of "stardate" it says "cunt".

      --
      Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
    15. Re:Correction by dargaud · · Score: 1

      We have an ISO standard (YYYY-MM-DD) for dates, let's use it Sure, as soon as the US finishes adopting the metric system... I say this in jest, but time/date is a lot harder to standardize than other measurement units and a lot of thought have poured into it. During the french revolution they tried to standardize all units, even time. They succeeded for all, except for time and and the US.
      --
      Non-Linux Penguins ?
    16. Re:Correction by SharpFang · · Score: 1

      in before unix timestamp

      --
      45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    17. Re:Correction by SharpFang · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      No worries here. All metamoderators know if you metamoderate -all- moderations you're given to metamoderate 'fair', you lose karma and likehood to get mod points, so they usually pick any 'dubious' moderations and metamod them 'unfair'.

      --
      45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    18. Re:Correction by Monsieur_F · · Score: 1

      Except it is the fifteenth. Or fifteen, I never know.

      And writing the month in letters is language-specific.

      --
      McCartney fans pay bus tickets. [...] Lennon fans too, with discretion.
    19. Re:Correction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How does that help us to un-confuse month and day digits? Seems to me like somebody wanted to show off their knowledge without fully reading this thread.

    20. Re:Correction by MightyYar · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'll accept that the US is the last holdout of Imperial units when I can't walk into any pub in London and hear people ordering "pints".

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    21. Re:Correction by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      You don't really need portability on an English-language web site, though.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    22. Re:Correction by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      Additionally, I'm completely unaware of anyone or anyplace using
      YYYY-DD-MM as a date format, and my googleing seems to confirm that. Yeah, but you are depending on your reader having that same knowledge? You can't expect everyone to know that factoid (you yourself had to check on google).
      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    23. Re:Correction by metamorfoza · · Score: 1

      In Australia we order pints as well. But, imo, that has nothing to do with imperial units (well it has, it is actually a imperial pint (~ 5dl)) but rather some form of cultural heritage and usage is purley local (only in pubs). Everything else is in metric units.

    24. Re:Correction by Detritus · · Score: 1

      It can still be a problem for people whose primary language is not English.

      --
      Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
    25. Re:Correction by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      This is an English-language site - and one which uses a relatively high level of vocabulary, at that. If they can get through all of the techno-babel and then get hung-up on the months of the year, I think they'll be able to deal :)

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    26. Re:Correction by dargaud · · Score: 1

      I think Nigeria is the only other holdout... As for the pint, it works fine and is unit-neutral if you just order a 'glass'... C;-)

      --
      Non-Linux Penguins ?
    27. Re:Correction by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      All, right, you wanna play that game :) Instead of pointing out that you'd probably get pretty angry if you ordered a pint and only got 250ml, I'll just mention that the Brits still use miles on their roads and, if I'm not mistaken, still report their weight in stones and buy their milk by the pint.

      It's no biggie really, it's just a thing to make trade easier. And, as an engineer, it makes our lives easier too! People take such pride in the metric system - it's kind of weird. It's just a somewhat-less-arbitrary system of measurements. The gram isn't even really based on anything. It's arbitrary - the weight of pure water filling a volume based on the distance between the poles of the earth. I'm happy for the standardization, but people get so snooty about it - like a gallon of milk is a weird size or something.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    28. Re:Correction by mwanaheri · · Score: 1

      Couldn't agree more!
      I just had to work with a software that claimed English(GB) localization but used american date-format. We're still early in the year, so quite a lot of entries went wrong. Personally, I'm used to iso-date meanwhile.

      --
      Idha khatabahum lijahiluna qalu salaman
    29. Re:Correction by CheshireCatCO · · Score: 1

      How about we all just use day-of-year notation? 2008-015 (time unknown).

      Or, better suggestion, write the month's name: 15 Jan. 2008.

    30. Re:Correction by mattr · · Score: 1

      NO no no. I live in Japan fuck off what are you talking about? No need to be rude.

      The commonly accepted standard is YYYY X M X D X where the X's are kanji characters. These are translated into dot notation commonly. It works in descending order which makes sense.

      I am not aware of any Europeans who use year first. The ambiguity to which you refer is due to the difference in order M-D or D-M used when writing out the full month name in the western world. I submit that by using a dot notation it is simpler and more logical.

      You do not write your IP address backwards do you? No. You write in progressively smaller magnitude groups, the same way as the decimal system works, another successful international standard. Of course dyslexics are screwed but if you must remove place signifiers at least YYYY.MM.DD makes the most sense, especially on the net.

  7. Re:Messenger's next destination by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    It's messages like this that make me wish there was a (-1 WTF) moderation.

  8. Oops... by Kozar_The_Malignant · · Score: 4, Informative

    The first images from the close approach will not be available until 01/05/08

    That should be 01/15/08. After 15:00 EST.
    --
    Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
    1. Re:Oops... by Inda · · Score: 3, Insightful

      In Quîndecimber?

      14 months is a long time to wait.

      --
      This post contains benzene, nitrosamines, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide.
    2. Re:Oops... by Kozar_The_Malignant · · Score: 1

      In Quîndecimber?

      14 months is a long time to wait.

      How about Quindicembre? But Dicembre really ought to be Dodicembre anyway since it's the twelfth month not the tenth, but if Dicembre is the twelfth, then the fifteenth would be Tredicembre.

      Either way it's not really so long to wait, since this would be the thirteenth month. :-)

      --
      Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
    3. Re:Oops... by bob.appleyard · · Score: 1

      December used to be the tenth month, but then someone (guess who) added July and August.

      --
      How dare you be so modest!! You conceited bastard!!
    4. Re:Oops... by dryeo · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Actually July and August were just renamed. July was Quintilis before being renamed in honour of Julius and August was Sextilis. The year used to start in March (Spring) so the month numbers were correct at one time.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    5. Re:Oops... by Inda · · Score: 1

      That'll teach me for googling the latin numbers and not spotting that dec is actually 10, not 12. Obvious when you think about it. :)

      --
      This post contains benzene, nitrosamines, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide.
  9. great flyby animation by imipak · · Score: 4, Informative

    There's a really nice animation on the Flyby 1 page: 10Mb version, 84Mb version.

    1. Re:great flyby animation by presidentbeef · · Score: 1

      That was sweet! I thought it was going to crash there for a moment, but they pulled up just in time...

      --
      Everything I need to know about copyrights I learned from Slashdot.
    2. Re:great flyby animation by snowraver1 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      I downloaded the 84Mb version and it seems to me that they could of accomplished the exact same thing using a 1 MB flash video. Tax dollars at work!

      --
      Copyright 2010. All rights reserved. This comment may not be copied in any way including, but not limited to caching.
  10. trolls by Pescar · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Do there seem to be a disproportionate number of trolls on this story? Only 5 or so comments and half are trolls. Are there multiple "N1ggrs sux!" guys or just one, very devoted, racist?

    --
    so.... you're a girl, huh?
  11. It's a FAKE! by Conspiracy_Of_Doves · · Score: 4, Funny

    That can't be real! There aren't any stars in the background!

    --

    Technoli
    1. Re:It's a FAKE! by Jefan · · Score: 2, Funny

      And if you look closely in that first picture, you can see a Coke bottle in one of the craters in the lower left hand corner!

    2. Re:It's a FAKE! by subnomine · · Score: 2, Funny

      So...like the 2008 Golden Globe awards?

    3. Re:It's a FAKE! by Max+Littlemore · · Score: 2, Funny

      Not only that, but if you look closely enough, you can see it's just one of the faked moon photos upside down! Definitely a hoax!

      --
      I don't therefore I'm not.
    4. Re:It's a FAKE! by somejeff · · Score: 1

      On the subject, I got all excited to see my house on the "Earth Departure Movie" http://messenger.jhuapl.edu/the_mission/flyby_movie.html.

      I was disappointed to see nothing but "Rock".

      No ISS, no communication satellites, no Microsoft Nuclear Weapons Array. Nada.

    5. Re:It's a FAKE! by 32771 · · Score: 1

      Well actually you are very possibly wrong, there are most likely stars in there.

      If you take Gimp and use the curves tool to map almost black to something human visible you can see a few dots besides Mercury and some at the lower screen border.
      Those lower border spots cover more than one pixel so they are probably not hot pixels which would have been removed anyway.

      The raw data might have shown you more but I couldn't find it somehow.

      I know you meant that to be a joke but I just couldn't pass up the opportunity to make a perfectly serious comment.

      --
      Je me souviens.
  12. Re:Photos are FAKE by palegray.net · · Score: 2, Interesting

    You must have read this highly informative site and applied your intensive research efforts directly to the debunking of this obviously fake planetary fly-by. My hat is off to you; job well done buddy...

    Dang it all, even I can't keep from laughing at that page.

    --
    512 MB RAM, 20 GB disk, 200 GB transfer, five datacenters. $19.95/month.
  13. A good quick read by coffee412 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Section of Reworked Venera-13 Image http://www.mentallandscape.com/V_DigitalImages.htm Checkout the venus pics if you havent already from the link above. Mercury surface pics would be cool.

  14. After they found the Face... by AbsoluteXyro · · Score: 1, Funny

    We all know about the Face on Mars, but I wonder if they will finally find the Butt on Mercury?

    1. Re:After they found the Face... by Mipsalawishus · · Score: 4, Funny

      That would be one hot ass!

    2. Re:After they found the Face... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I cant believe some moron modded this troll.

      Only a retarded earth larve would do such a thing.

      it's well known that the face on mars is the control for the martian engines, it was tested on Mercury first, that control set is on the butt. there....

      Cripes. it's all documented right here -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_planets_in_Invader_Zim

      Losers mod troll what they do not understand.

    3. Re:After they found the Face... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe you were thinking of Uranus

    4. Re:After they found the Face... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, come on people! it's an Invader Zim reference, if you haven't watched and been amused by Invader Zim, you deserve to have your geek card suspended!

    5. Re:After they found the Face... by AbsoluteXyro · · Score: 1

      I'm glad someone got the reference! I can't begin to fathom what the people who modded my post "Troll" were thinking.

  15. Oblig. by kazdoran · · Score: 0, Funny

    It's pretty obvious no one wants to go THAT close to Uranus.

  16. Re:Photos are FAKE by rubycodez · · Score: 3, Insightful

    stare for a tenth of a second at the Sun through 8x binoculars. then you will have some idea why a camera that can image mercury's sunlit surface can't detect stars.

  17. Re:Photos are FAKE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Normally I don't reply to trolls, but...

    Of course its fake. They went to the trouble of faking the image and then not think of putting stars in the background. Gee, I would never have thought of that, that no one would suspect it.

    Give me a break....

  18. when by mikerubin · · Score: 1

    can we see the images in Google Mercury ?
    How about crater level imaging?

    --
    I sat down to write a new sig tonight and all I did was make the chair warm.
  19. Re:Photos are FAKE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    God took out the stars to test us.

  20. Global warming on Mercury by heroine · · Score: 4, Funny

    There's a planet with a serious global warming problem.

    1. Re:Global warming on Mercury by TempeTerra · · Score: 2, Funny

      Nonsense. It's part of a perfectly natural cycle the planet goes through and if you stop driving your SUV you might even make the planet COLDER than it should be. There is no global warming problem ;)

      --
      .evom ton seod gis eht
  21. Mayday by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "he first images from the close approach will not be available until 01/05/08 when Messenger has finished data collection and points its antenna towards Earth and begins to transmit data. Can't wait for images of a very harsh environment."

    Why will it take 4 months to collect the data?

  22. damn my tax money is being wasted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    if the only imaging capabilties they have are 8x binolucars..

  23. Re:I'm a nigger. by TheDreadSlashdotterD · · Score: 1

    digga pls, go back to digg.

    --
    I have nothing to say.
  24. Am I the only one... by thegrassyknowl · · Score: 1

    ...that thought the headline referred to the Mercury Messenger program that is "compatible" with a certain large vendor's offering?

    --
    I drink to make other people interesting!
  25. He by somejeff · · Score: 1

    Hey Messenger, bring back more Helium

    Meh, I doubt he's even logged in. Anyone know Messenger's Hotmail Address?

  26. I hope they packed lots of sunscreen ... by Ihlosi · · Score: 1
    ... preferably the kind that has its SPF measured in "powers of ten".



    (Just kidding. I know the probe actually has a physical sunscreen that keeps it from being toasted).

  27. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  28. What? Messenger flies? by fintux · · Score: 1

    Looking at the title, so many questions pop into my head - "Messenger Flies by Mercury" What are those Messenger flies? What are they doing by mercury? Is it not poisonous?

  29. "Robotic" spacecraft ? by MikeRR · · Score: 1

    Just using buzzwords, or anything especially robotic about this one?

    All spacecraft are semi-automated...

    1. Re:"Robotic" spacecraft ? by CheshireCatCO · · Score: 1

      I'd wouldn't call the space shuttles "robotic" and I certainly wouldn't use the term of, say, the Mercury capsules. The term "robotic", which is very commonly used for *all* unmanned spacecraft, is meant to differentiate those missions from the manned ones. It's not a buzz-word, it's standard parlance.

  30. What a let-down by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

    After reading the headline I was hoping I'd be able to buy messenger flies from a Mercury dealer.

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    1. Re:What a let-down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know, in a surrealistic kind of way, that's damn funny.

  31. Actually true on Venus by snowwrestler · · Score: 1

    [cue dorky serious response] Venus, despite being much farther from the Sun than Mercury, actually has higher surface temperatures. The reason is that its atmosphere is mostly CO2 and methane, which have created a very strong greenhouse effect.

    --
    Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
  32. Hi there... by logicioner · · Score: 1

    You must be American...

  33. Mercury Messenger? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And I thought this was about the IM client...

  34. Re:Cant wait... At first, I thought I saw... by davidsyes · · Score: 1

    ms messenger flies by Uranus...

    --
    Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
  35. Re:Photos are FAKE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    stare for a tenth of a second at the Sun through 8x binoculars

    I tried this and I didn't see anything. BTW, I'm blind, you insensitive clod!

  36. Being there by mcnutt · · Score: 1

    I was lucky enough to be there at APL during the flyby. Let me tell you, that was a really exciting moment when the spacecraft came back into contact with the DSN after the eclipse of the MESSENGER by Mercury. This is an image retreived today from the spacecraft. It's really exciting. http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/messenger/main/index.html

    --
    Sometimes it really does take a rocket scientist...
  37. Extremely Close by PhotoGuy · · Score: 3, Interesting

    200km! Wow, that's incredibly close to Mercury. For comparison's sake, geosynchronous orbit (where all our TV and most communication satellites live) are at 36,371 km from earth, 181 times as far as this probe went to mercury. Even the highest resolution earth imaging satellites we have orbit at around 500km.

    While you can't scoop up the dirt, being that close for visuals has to be nearly as good as landing there...

    --
    Love many, trust a few, do harm to none.